[shragon]

SAN MATEO CO.: CHP: BOY HELD IN FATAL CRASH WAS VIOLATING LICENSE, SPEEDING
06/18/07 11:45 PDT

A 16-year-old San Francisco boy was violating his provisional driver's license and was speeding when he drove his parents' BMW into an oncoming car Sunday afternoon east of Daly City, killing an 87-year-old man and critically injuring the man's wife, a California Highway Patrol spokesman said this morning.

According to CHP Officer Shawn Chase, the boy had a 15-year-old male passenger in his parents' 2007 BMW and they were speeding along eastbound Guadalupe Canyon Parkway, just east of Price Street, at about 2 p.m. when the boy apparently lost control at a curve and spun into the oncoming lane.

The BMW collided head on with a Pontiac Grand Am carrying August Marinello, 87, and his wife. Marinello was killed in the crash and his wife, who is in her late 70s, was transported to San Francisco General Hospital with critical injuries.

As of this morning, the CHP had received no update on the woman's condition, Chase said.

According to Chase, the teen driver had a provisional driver's license, which requires a licensed driver at least 25 years old be in the vehicle with him.

Based on skid marks extended more than 100 feet over the roadway, the boy had been speeding "well above the posted 45 (mph speed limit) there," Chase said.

The boy, whose identity is not being released, was treated for minor injuries at the scene before being arrested on suspicion of vehicular manslaughter, Chase said. He is now being held at San Francisco's Youth Guidance Center and will likely face an upcoming court date in San Mateo County.

this article has some more details. model still unknown though.

[calvino]

here is South FL old people are the worst drivers. I always see them going at 40 in the highway, changing lanes with out looking or braking suddenly with out no reason.
I'm more afraid of a 80 year old than a 16 year old behind the wheel.

[user1]

Originally Posted by calvino

here is South FL old people are the worst drivers. I always see them going at 40 in the highway, changing lanes with out looking or braking suddenly with out no reason.
I'm more afraid of a 80 year old than a 16 year old behind the wheel.

Note: what I am writing is a generalization.
I can predict an 80 year old better than a 16 year old so I can avoid any problems with an 80 year old. They are typically slower and easier to avoid. They only wonder in my way by accident and I can see that coming. Honking causes an 80 year old to correct their mistake. The hard breaking is also easy to avoid as I can see through their untinted windows at the traffic ahead. Their slower reaction times cause hard braking but its predictable.

A teenager is harder to predict. Normally goes faster rather than slower, cuts people off knowingly to get ahead in traffic and goes from accelerating to hard breaking due to lack of planning ahead. Honking only causes more erratic behavior out of anger, embarrassment or adrenaline. Its the difference between avoiding a tortoise or a rabbit on crack. I can know where the tortoise is headed but that rabbit on crack can come out of anywhere and do just about anything with no warning.

[DCJAX]

Originally Posted by shragon

this article has some more details. model still unknown though.

Ok, so it was his parents car....

Speeds in excess of 45? That could mean 65 or 120.....

Why does this matter? Beats the heck out of me.

[RANJHA]

Originally Posted by calvino

here is South FL old people are the worst drivers. I always see them going at 40 in the highway, changing lanes with out looking or braking suddenly with out no reason.
I'm more afraid of a 80 year old than a 16 year old behind the wheel.

+1 Just saw a senior citizen yesterday trying to enter an interstate using an off-ramp.

[user1]

Originally Posted by DCJAX

Ok, so it was his parents car....

Speeds in excess of 45? That could mean 65 or 120.....

Why does this matter? Beats the heck out of me.

Argument is still valid. The kid shouldn’t have been driving. Parents aren’t parenting. The kid was still inexperienced and that caused the accident. Whether the car was given to him or was taken from the parents, there still is a lack of parenting. If they have a delinquent kid they should be hiding the keys or be on trial for accessory to manslaughter right next to their killer kid.

[user1]

Originally Posted by RANJHA

+1 Just saw a senior citizen yesterday trying to enter an interstate using an off-ramp.

Nicole Richie did that too at the age of 24 or 25. Lets not confuse old with stupid at any age.

[RANJHA]

Originally Posted by user1

Argument is still valid. The kid shouldn’t have been driving. Parents aren’t parenting. The kid was still inexperienced and that caused the accident. Whether the car was given to him or was taken from the parents, there still is a lack of parenting. If they have a delinquent kid they should be hiding the keys or be on trial for accessory to manslaughter right next to their killer kid.

How would they know if they have a 'deliquent kid?'

I mean when a kid with a 16 year old brain gets behind a BMW 335i (for example), they can act totally differently. Not necessairily something the parents can see coming. I mean if he had like a record of wreckless driving sure, but unless I missed something I don't think that was the case.

Just my 2 cents

[RANJHA]

Originally Posted by user1

Nicole Richie did that too at the age of 24 or 25. Lets not confuse old with stupid at any age.

lmao good one

lol i saw that coming

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by Maestro

I would define suck as doing things because they are clueless and would do it even if they had experience, which I see lots of sucky drivers of all ages.

Doing it because you have no idea and have not learned does not make you a sucky driver just a poor one or inexperience.

Like I said, I was luck and did some stupid things but never did them twice.

I would define sucky driving as driving in a way that is likely to cause an accident or harm to self and/or others. Generally speaking, kids suck at driving.

If you are rear ended, hit head on, forced off the road or your life is otherwise endangered by a sucky driver I seriously doubt you would be interested in the reason for the sucky driving or trying to define what sucky driving is. You would be pissed that a sucky driver caused an accident that endagered your life, providing you still had a life to be pissed over.

[LEDZEP]

[RANJHA]

Originally Posted by BKsBimmer

Generally speaking, kids suck at driving.

lol i wouldnt say "generally speaking"...in fact kids could be way better at driving because they have a quicker response time to unexpected occurances....

[user1]

Originally Posted by RANJHA

How would they know if they have a 'deliquent kid?'

I mean when a kid with a 16 year old brain gets behind a BMW 335i (for example), they can act totally differently. Not necessairily something the parents can see coming. I mean if he had like a record of wreckless driving sure, but unless I missed something I don't think that was the case.

Just my 2 cents

That is why I started my sentence with "If they have a delinquent kid". If its found that the kid is a delinquent then they should hold the parents partly responsible. You can prove delinquency through a juvi record of any kind, a history of bad actions as proven through eyewitness accounts, police reports, school records, etc. It doesnt have to be driving infractions that show a parent they have a delinquent kid on their hands.

If we hold parents more accountable for the actions of their kids then they might start parenting again. Something that has seemed to stop in recent years. We cant always shrug off responsibility just because the kid was young.

[LEDZEP]

Originally Posted by RANJHA

lol i wouldnt say "generally speaking"...in fact kids could be way better at driving because they have a quicker response time to unexpected occurances....

On what planet is this true?

Just asking.


All the reflexes in the world can't break the laws of physics. Nor can they be a substitute for the experience of driving proactively with an understanding of the things that can occur during a drive, and the way a vehicle will behave during conditions and manuvers.

[LEDZEP]

Originally Posted by user1

That is why I started my sentence with "If they have a delinquent kid". If its found that the kid is a delinquent then they should hold the parents partly responsible. You can prove delinquency through a juvi record of any kind, a history of bad actions as proven through eyewitness accounts, police reports, school records, etc. It doesnt have to be driving infractions that show a parent they have a delinquent kid on their hands.

If we hold parents more accountable for the actions of their kids then they might start parenting again. Something that has seemed to stop in recent years. We cant always shrug off responsibility just because the kid was young.

I got news for you, in most states the parents ARE responsible for the criminal and civil liabilities of a minor CHILD. Everything they own will belong to the family of the victims after the wrongful death trial.

[RaptorKTM]

Originally Posted by Nikki

Hey, hey...let's not turn this into another argument. There are plenty of teens on this board and out there on the roads that DO NOT drive fast and kill people. If this weren't true you would hear stories like this every day, not every few months.

+1

[user1]

Originally Posted by RANJHA

lol i wouldnt say "generally speaking"...in fact kids could be way better at driving because they have a quicker response time to unexpected occurances....

I wish I knew where the report and articles were on this one. I think 20/20 even did a report on this. Reaction times dont make up for inexperienced driving habits. Older drivers tend to slow down to counteract their reduced reaction times while younger drivers put themselves in dangerous situations only to rely on reaction times to avoid a problem. There is data on this somewhere. I don’t feel like spending time on this so you can choose to believe or not believe me on this one.

[user1]

Originally Posted by LEDZEP

I got news for you, in most states the parents ARE responsible for the criminal and civil liabilities of a minor CHILD. Everything they own will belong to the family of the victims after the wrongful death trial.

Civil yes, criminal, no. A parent doesnt go on trial for murder if a child commits the crime (criminal). A parent can loose material possessions & money due to a childs actions (civil). But insurance covers some or all of that so civil penalties are not much of an incentive to make parents do their job.

EDIT: Insurance pays out but the parents are allowed to provide for their families. Wages are garnished and sometimes a few possessions sold but the parents dont truly suffer for not raising their kid right. Its closer to being unconvinced. Its not like everything they have is taken away. Judgments aren’t carried out as harsh as it sounds on the news or in the movies with everything being taken away.

[calle_enell]

My deepest condolences out to the family of the 87-old man.

I think that similar to sportbikes in Europe, an age limit and classification on high-performance cars would make sense. That is, no-one under 21 should be allowed to drive any small passenger car with i.e more then i.e 200 Bph.
There is undisputed evidence that young age has a strong correlation to accident rates (as well as having young passangers in the car)

[DasBlitz]

Originally Posted by DCJAX

I can count on one hand the number of "tuned" (fast) civics I have seen. Not to mention that all you have to do is NOT buy your kid a new engine for his civic. Bingo, slow car. It's nonsense to suggest that giving a kid a Civic is just as iresponsible (not to mention you are spoiling the kid) as a BMW.

No, the reasons are valid. Buying 16 year olds nice cars if a stupid idea for many reasons.

Not buy a new engine? Ok the kid can add parts easily without switching the engine. Use Nos etc. Plus Civics are slow but can go 100 and can be somewhat nimble so can easily get into accidents with one.

Spoiling the kid? See there is where the huge issue is. Many on here are angry a KID owns a vehicle that took them so long to get. Spoiled? Having a car can be considered spoiled. Having a BMW in some areas can be considered common.

In hindsight giving a kid a car period is irresponsible. They are not safe even for adults and use so much money.

[BMWCali]

Originally Posted by dbtheo

What's irresponsible is how easy it is for ANYONE to get a license. I for one wish it was much tougher (similar to europe) to get a license. I see plenty of idiots (young and old) on the road who have no business driving.

I completely agree. IMHO, you should be required to pay a one time fee of $2,000 to get a drivers license, in addition to testing being more difficult to pass, plus everyone under the age of 21 should have a recorder installed in their car that documents their driving habits. Maybe one time going 130MPH would be overlooked as good will, but if the driver is going 30MPH over the speedlimit every single day something should be done. This would weed out most of the riffraff.

[Professor///M]

Originally Posted by Nikki

Hey, hey...let's not turn this into another argument. There are plenty of teens on this board and out there on the roads that DO NOT drive fast and kill people. If this weren't true you would hear stories like this every day, not every few months.

It's called publicity.

The 300,000 automobile injuries yearly due to alcohol are not publicized. If they were, you'd need a news channel just for them.